I hope you're not seriously forwarding that argument. That argument is like the cliche of retarded internet atheism.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Omnipotence means the power to do anything that is logically possible. Omnipotence doesn't pertain to logical contradictions.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

So you are saying that the powers of an omnipotent being are not actually omnipotent but instead are limited by what is logically possible.

It's not a dodge or a limitation, omnipotence isn't in anyway diminished by inconceivable absurdities like square circles and rocks to big for an infinite power to lift. It's just a really dumb argument that's not defended by any competent philosopher.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

User mini profile

Sivad wrote:It's not a dodge or a limitation, omnipotence isn't in anyway diminished by inconceivable absurdities like square circles and rocks to big for an infinite power to lift. It's just a really dumb argument that's not defended by any competent philosopher.

As long as we agree that the laws of logic are powerful than an all powerful god.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that the laws of logic are powerful than an all powerful god.

the laws of logic aren't like magical forces that determine reality, they're just the rules of coherency and intelligibility.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

User mini profile

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and thank you for defining which things are stronger than the supposedly omnipotent god.

You should have just called me a racist, it would have made more sense. Fucking pofo.

"only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many two or three." - Professor Walter Ricciardi, Director of the Department of Public Health

Hindsite wrote:Any environmental influence is more correctly called adaptation to the environment, not evolution.

Bollocks!

'Adaptation' is evolution.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.

Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics.

Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.

As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, a species will gradually evolve - change over time.

What did you think it was?

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.

Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics.

Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.

As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, a species will gradually evolve - change over time.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.

Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics.

Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.

As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, a species will gradually evolve - change over time.

What did you think it was?

I am pretty sure that mutations in DNA are not selectable and, in any case, a mutation still leads to a loss of genetic information. So in those cases in which a mutation may have helped a creature adapt to a specific environment, the loss of geneic information may prevent the creature from adapting to other envirnments. This is actually opposite of evolution.

Besoeker2 wrote:How exactly is that proof?Please give examples.

I haven't got the time to give exact proofs, but in general the existence of a creation is evidence of a Creator.

Living things provide abundant evidence of their relatively recent creation